Now from where i'm coming from, Dr. No and FRWL are my top 2 Bond movies and Terence Young my favorite Bond director just from those alone, but i've felt Goldfinger is very deserving of all of its recognition. Yes it was the one that started the series toward the light-hearted path but the series was going to go that path either way because of the 2 fellas running the series always trying to appeal to the masses, which owe to the series' longevity, having it in mind from the beginning. Guy Hamilton, known for his love of fun and colorful approach, was wanted from the beginning. And Goldfinger in that sense is really the best in its approach, of course its subject matter was outlandish by Fleming in itself to begin with. The Thunderball novel might be the stronger of the two, but film-wise it's the opposite.
Connery in Thunderball is just too confident for me, in Goldfinger Bond may have become the suave superhero but at least he didn't appear overwhelmingly smug. He got more smug in Goldfinger but it was still balanced out with many points where Bond has the "aw crap" face, like in the first two movies. He was shown in moments of vulnerability unlike in Thunderball, everything is a piece of cake to him, i only remember him running through the carnival with a wounded leg when you sense he's in any danger. Or he's jetting with his underwater pack singlehandedly winning the climactic battle, compared to GF's finale of him and Oddjob alone locked in a duel in the soon-to-be irradiated bowels of gold. It's just not so enjoyable to see a super confident hero where everything works out for him and he does all perfectly. In Goldfinger all the baddies and women he faced, he appeared very much more to struggle with them, not everything worked out for him everytime. The henchmen are so inept in Thunderball i just can't really imagine how SPECTRE tried to carry things out with some of these guys, Vargas the most useless of all, i shed a tear of joy when he was laughably harpooned. Though Fiona is one of the strong points. The movie came off too dreary, just boring, and not in a good way. Some movies can pull off the calm parts and still be interesting while others just feel like a continued hammer to your brain. There were quite a few easy-going parts in GF i remember, Miami, trailing Goldfinger, Kentucky moments that had no action but were interesting. The climactic TB battles underwater with numerous people in the throes of death from harpoons again sounds better on paper but watching it is another thing. Watching fights underwater just sucks. Or the boat fight which felt like it was going for urgency but came off silly.
People say the Leiter in Goldfinger is more like Bond's Uncle rather than his CIA counterpart, and he does appear older, and the Thunderball Leiter is the mirror image of the Leiter from the books, well i have to say TB's Leiter might look like in the book but is he supposed to be a 2x4 plank of wood? Just bland, in the books Bond and Leiter had a joking comradery and appeared more of an equal, in TB Leiter felt more like a doormat for Bond, without much of a personality. In Goldfinger he may look like an old man but he has more of a presence and has a will of his own, significantly more enjoyable than TB's mannequin. GF's Leiter is the better personality-wise which is what really counts to me. As for the music TB comes short of the dynamic sounds of GF, like where it repeats the same 5 beats followed by the most annoying screeching whistle sound you ever heard compared to Goldfinger's varied amounts of brassy, easy-going, and jazzy tunes. Where Thunderball tried to top Goldfinger's successful formula, it forgot what made it so enjoyable in the first place, that it still remained grounded and focused around the characters themselves, not veering off on relying on the fight and spectacle.
Edited by Colossus, 19 March 2007 - 02:15 AM.
